Astrologers See Obama Victory

Alas, our great nation is in retrograde, with the House of Koalemos (Greek god of stupidity) rising, ever rising. Dark cosmic forces have aligned—perhaps maligned is a better way to put it—and caused ill omens which to the adept implies that the shadow which has enveloped us will linger four more years.

Or so says the news emanating from “a meeting of the world’s top astrologers” (which is like saying a conclave of the world’s top intellectual Marxists, but never mind). What’s “astrology”? Well, this report tells us

Not to be confused with astronomy, the scientific study of the physical universe, astrology uses non-scientific methods to predict how the relative positions of celestial bodies may influence human behavior and future events.

Now that that’s settled, let’s meet Chicago astrologist and corporate lawyer (corporate lawyer?) Nina Gryphon, whose musings on the “Aries ingress” indicate that The One will best Romney.

Chris Brennan, pulling a switch, eschewed the Aries ingress and went straight to the “ingress of Saturn.” Which tells us all we need know of Brennan, but it also informs us that Obama will probably definitely win. That is, Obama’s victory is maybe certain.

Naming a particular celestial retrograde, Brennan says, “Most astrologers are pretty certain that this [retrograding] could cause problems similar to what happened in the 2000 election.” He tightens this with the addition that “something” is “up in the air about the election.” You can’t be more definite than that.

And in the end, the ingress speaks forcefully that Romney’s number is up.

I know you won’t scoff because, the report tells us, “Two of the panelists participated in a similar session four years ago when the panel also gave a unanimous thumbs-up to Obama.” However, another report on the United Astrology Conference said “At the last conference, in May 2008, six panelists unanimously predicted Obama’s win over Sen. John McCain [emphasis mine].”

Since these are media reports, both must be right, so we have a mystery how two can simultaneously be six.

Skip it. It’s the predictions and how to make them that counts. For instance, at the conference master astrologer Susie Cox asks us, “Do you know the Sun Signs? I mean Really know them! I thought I knew them too until I wrote the book, Susie’s Sun Signs, and now realize there is so much more to them.”

And it isn’t just ingresses, sun signs, and retrogrades. It’s also horary resolution charts, transiting lunar nodes, and magical rapport measurements. Boil all these together and you have a powerful predictive concoction which says Obama is in and Romney out.

But do not be disheartened! There is good news to be gleaned from this stream of fell forecasts. Astrologists, when they manage to make unambiguous political predictions are wrong more often than they are right. They are like the stock broker who frequently picks stocks to rise which fall and vice versa. They are reasonably accurate negative barometers.

That means their predictions of an Obama romp implies that it is Romney who is likely to win, that the veil will soon be lifted. So be of good cheer and tell the world. Tell this to everybody wherever they are. Watch the skies. Everywhere. Keep looking. Keep watching the skies!

Actually, no. Science does a good job explaining the movement of astronomical objects and astronomers do a poor job making predictions. The metaphysics behind astronomy and astrology are different, too, one being more logically coherent than the other (but both, in modern terms, incomplete).

” this [retrograding] could cause problems similar to what happened in the 2000 election.”

Hey, isn’t that what I predicted for the 2012 elections? I didn’t consult any stars, or starlets. I just had a belt of Jack Daniels, closed my eyes, and predicted a Romney win with at least one state erupting into countless recounts.

You don’t need an astrologer to see that the Republicans blew their big chance this time just as they did in 2008. I looked into my ball for confirmation (the black one with the figure 8 which may be a upright, overweight infinity symbol) and it said: “Signs point to yes”.

[A]strology uses non-scientific methods to predict how the relative positions of celestial bodies may influence human behavior and future events.

That statement is just wrong. Statistical analysis & the scientific method are modern astrology. Astrology is a good example of applying science to things which are not amiable to science, the field isn’t science science but the predictions are scientific (science-y?).

Mind you Astrology, despite having the trappings of science, has a bad reputation because it so often makes bad predictions. While Astrology has a better track record for predictions than Climate Science, it is unlikely that any reporter would accuse the entire field of using non-scientific methods even a reporter who claims climate science isn’t a science.

Just to clear up one of your points of confusion: two of the six panelists from four years ago were among the five panelists this time. The panel members were not all repeated from the prior conference. I was in attendance at both events and actually the news report was a little inaccurate. Four years ago, one panelist (Shelley Ackerman) declined to be definitive because the technique she uses – the chart of the time of the nomination at the convention – was not available since the astrology conference pre-dated the Democratic convention.

I realize that as a statistician, you would like a more scientific (or independently verifiable) system for predictions. At this point in history, science has not yet discovered a mechanism to explain how it is that astrology can make forecasts with greater than chance accuracy. Perhaps someday we will know. You might be interested to learn that there are astrologers conducting statistical analyses on a number of facets of life ranging from marriage to vocations to weather using large samples. They are testing (and sometimes disproving) some of the ancient tenets of astrology.

Astrology is a field that many intelligent people dismiss without any scientific investigation. If there was nothing to it, astrologers would not be able to make concurring and correct forecasts, but they can and do, on a regular basis. Maybe as a scientist, you could try observing and study before ridicule and condemnation. Did you know the word “consider” means “with the stars” and arose from the common practice of consulting astrologers before making a decision?

Oh and Janet, a very simple explanation has been found for your … ahhh… “greater than chance accuracy” forecasting abilities: self-delusion coupled with confirmatory biases.

Read some statistics (you could do worse than reading Mr Briggs’ own books on the psychics, for instance), then read some Nassim Taleb and have an epiphany. It will probably hurt your ability to continue your work in an honest fashion (that is, to believe in what you do), so I don’t know if this is a truth you should ask for…

To be fair Luis, we ought to observe that “self-delusion coupled with confirmatory biases” is not confined to astrology but is found more-or-less everywhere. Even in our own lives when we’re not paying attention properly. It’s the way the human brain naturally works, apparently. Thinking that’s strictly logical is very hard work.